- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is it going to take for football to become run first again?
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:46 pm to Speedy G
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:46 pm to Speedy G
quote:Yea, I'm still trying to figure out what he meant there.
And going for it on 4th and 30 from near midfield w/ an 8 point lead is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard. If Atlanta goes for that, NE wins in regulation.
0
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:47 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
Stop posting. You are a fricking idiot.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:48 pm to shel311
quote:
And before last season's play, you had learned that 196 straight pass attempts from the 1 were not intercepted, so if you go off of what you learned BEFORE they play and not Captain Hindsight, you would have been ok with the pass.
Im pretty sure I know what Im ok with more than you know what im ok with. Im also pretty sure no one gives a fuzzy rat's arse what you and I are or are not ok with.
I posted in that fashion due to what he said about what he learned.
Lets look at the issue from as researched by others with way more time that me:
quote:
In the past five seasons, including the playoffs entering last night, teams on the opponent’s 1-yard line ran the ball on 71 percent of all plays. On those plays, teams scored a touchdown 54 percent of the time while turning the ball over 1.5 percent of the time. When passing from the 1, teams scored a touchdown just under 50 percent of the time while turning the ball over at a slightly higher rate.
Written after Seattle's decision
quote:
Teams on the 1-yard line have run the ball 73.97% of the time since 2000 and are successful 53.88% of the time. Teams passing from the 1-yard line have posted a 48.34% success rate. Being so close to the goal line, success almost always means scoring a touchdown—though there are a few penalty situations that could be considered a success.
Written after regular season game in 2014
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:51 pm to L5UT1ger
quote:You base your decisions AFTER the fact as evidenced by your post on the previous page, so no shite you do. Everyone does. Congrats, you get a cookie!!!
Im pretty sure I know what Im ok with more than you know what im ok with
quote:Irrelevant. You can't count passing on 3rd or 4th and goal at the 1 the same as on 1st down. If that were the 1st down data, it would be a good point.
quote:In the past five seasons, including the playoffs entering last night, teams on the opponent’s 1-yard line ran the ball on 71 percent of all plays. On those plays, teams scored a touchdown 54 percent of the time while turning the ball over 1.5 percent of the time. When passing from the 1, teams scored a touchdown just under 50 percent of the time while turning the ball over at a slightly higher rate.
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 1:52 pm
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:51 pm to shel311
quote:
If you mean safest as in least likely to result in a turnover, the numbers were posted after the Russell Wilson INT and the data said it was safer to pass.
Not according to what I found. The articles were more along the lines of "It wasnt THAT bad of a decision" rather than its better to pass than run.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:52 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Both teams use running back by committee of no names.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:53 pm to L5UT1ger
quote:What you found doesn't really translate to be comparable to 1st and goal at the 1 data.
Not according to what I found
quote:Now take that data and see the difference between the turnover rate on 1st and goal at the 1 passing vs running and I'd imagine we see different results.
The articles were more along the lines of "It wasnt THAT bad of a decision" rather than its better to pass than run.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:54 pm to shel311
your data of 196 didnt only include first and goal. unless i missed your link and source. the plain text refers to plays at the one.
ETA: it was second down for the Seattle game, iirc.
ETA: it was second down for the Seattle game, iirc.
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 1:55 pm
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:56 pm to L5UT1ger
quote:True, but if all 196 did not result in INTs, then whatever the number was, it was still no INTs.
your data of 196 didnt only include first and goal. unless i missed your link and source
quote:Gotcha. I still would say my point stands. I'd have to imagine turnovers on passes from the 1 on 3rd and 4th down have to be much higher than 1st and 2nd, seems logical, no?
ETA: it was second down for the Seattle game, iirc
Posted on 2/6/17 at 1:57 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Horse shite. It's a fricking brilliant idea.
Seriously, talk to me. What's the problem with this? It solves the problem of the coin completely
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:00 pm to shel311
quote:If you pass the ball only 7 things can happen: incomplete pass, pick, sack, sack fumble loss, sack fumble recovery or Td.
If you mean safest as in least likely to result in a turnover, the numbers were posted after the Russell Wilson INT and the data said it was safer to pass.
Now, I'll certainly concede the type of pass they through, that was the real takeaway to me, but I had no issues with simply passing the ball.
If you run the ball 4 things can happen: gain yardage/TD, lose yardage, fumble loss, fumble recovery.
One of those creates the possibility of more negative things that can happen the other doesn't. Which one is safer?
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:01 pm to shel311
quote:
Gotcha. I still would say my point stands. I'd have to imagine turnovers on passes from the 1 on 3rd and 4th down have to be much higher than 1st and 2nd, seems logical, no?
Maybe so because of the other team expecting it. With huge variable such as formation and personel, I cant imagine really being able to quantify it.
Regardless, I appreciate your "tone" being more civil after coming out quite dismissive.
Personally, in a situation such at first and goal at the one where a TD wins the game or a TD is necessary, i think i'd use 4 types of plays:
Run inside, run outside, pass, and five wide QB draw or four wide RB draw.
I think you generally run inside or outside depending on what your and the other team's strengths are on first and second down. Pass on third and draw or pass depending on how they defend the box on fourth down. But, that just how I would generally do it from the sofa.
This post was edited on 2/6/17 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:03 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Your 7 vs 4 is entirely irrelevant. What does the data say in comparable situations?
One of those creates the possibility of more negative things that can happen the other doesn't. Which one is safer?
And again on 3rd or 4th and goal from the 1, those are not comparable situations to 2nd and goal at the 1 IMO.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:05 pm to shel311
quote:
those are not comparable situations to 2nd and goal at the 1 IMO.
The general talking points on goal to go short yardage is if you are going to pass, do it on second down. Thats what ive heard nearly my entire life.
I still say run the mother one first. its a "free" shot at it.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:06 pm to shel311
quote:How is it irrelevant? All possible outcomes are factored into achieving the desired outcome.
Your 7 vs 4 is entirely irrelevant. What does the data say in comparable situations?
And again on 3rd or 4th and goal from the 1, those are not comparable situations to 2nd and goal at the 1 IMO.
quote:You have one less down to work with which changes the percentages on which is the best option. Running it, with all outcomes factored, is still the best option.
And again on 3rd or 4th and goal from the 1, those are not comparable situations to 2nd and goal at the 1 IMO.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:08 pm to L5UT1ger
quote:I think Pete Carroll eluded to that or flatly said that after the game too.
The general talking points on goal to go short yardage is if you are going to pass, do it on second down. Thats what ive heard nearly my entire life.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:10 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:I don't care if one of them has 100 outcomes and the other one 2, the actual data will tell you what is the safer decision.
How is it irrelevant? All possible outcomes are factored into achieving the desired outcome.
1 may create more negative outcomes but if those negative outcomes occur at a smaller rate than the positive ones, then isn't your premise irrelevant?
quote:Right, which is HUGE.
You have one less down to work with which changes the percentages on which is the best option
quote:Based on what?
Running it, with all outcomes factored, is still the best option.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:14 pm to shel311
quote:You still have to factor in where the ball is being thrown as well. Passing it to the outside in one on one situations is not the same as throwing a slant in traffic. Throwing it to the back of the end-zone is safer as well. All of these things are factors and give you false data when they aren't factored in. Yes it may be the safe bet based on previous data, but taking out those factors I mentioned and observing them tells the true story.
I don't care if one of them has 100 outcomes and the other one 2, the actual data will tell you what is the safer decision.
1 may create more negative outcomes but if those negative outcomes occur at a smaller rate than the positive ones, then isn't your premise irrelevant?
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:16 pm to shel311
quote:
Based on what?
here is also a potential factor. Lets assume run versus pass is just as likely to score and just as likely to result in a turnover.
What about if a team actually scores on the possession when they run on first down versus pass on first down? This is absolutely relevant. You are more likley to lose significant yardage passing maybe? What about more likley to get a holding penalty? or more likely to draw a pass interference, which makes the pass play a free shot at it?
I just feel like a concrete decision based solely on numbers is hard, if not impossible when trying to factor in all things that matter.
Regarding the "if you are gonna pass it, do it on second down" mantra. I think that applies when you dont intend on absolutely having to score a TD. If you Know you will go for it on fourth and goal from short yardage, you dont pass until third.
Posted on 2/6/17 at 2:17 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Agreed, as I've already pointed out.
You still have to factor in where the ball is being thrown as well. Passing it to the outside in one on one situations is not the same as throwing a slant in traffic. Throwing it to the back of the end-zone is safer as well
I said the issue wasn't simply calling a pass, it was calling that type of pass.
I also found, in the last 10 years on 2nd and 1, teams ran 270 passes before that play, 129 TDs/4 INTs. So that's a turnover 1.48% of the time. Looks to be right around the same exact turnover rate for runs, if not slightly safer. So again, that's why the number of possible outcomes is irrelevant. You have to assign a % to each outcome then add em up to get your answer.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News